NO NEW OFF-LEASH AREAS

The OLA draft says that Seattle Parks “will specifically include OLAs as an element for consideration in the planning process” when SPR embarks on the development or redevelopment process for new and existing parks.

This is not a commitment for new OLAs. It’s merely saying Seattle Parks will consider them during the planning process. That’s only slightly better than the current policy which doesn’t require consideration of OLAs, but it guarantees nothing.

NO UNFENCED OLAS

An unfenced OLA is an open space where people can let their dogs off-leash at off-peak times. For instance, New York City’s Central Park allows off-leash dogs before 9 AM and after 9 PM.

Seattle has dozens of play fields that people don’t use for most of the year. Why not allow off-leash dogs on them when no one uses them? Wouldn’t this be an inexpensive, innovative way to give more space for off-leash dogs?

NO NEW OFF LEASH WATER ACCESS OR TRAILS

The plan categorically dismisses providing new OLAs with water access or off-leash trails. Only one OLA (Magnuson) has water access, and Seattle has no off-leash trails. This is simply unacceptable in a city that has 50% more dogs than children.

At the public meeting the Parks Board said nothing to indicate it would make any modifications to the draft plan.

Several well-behaved dogs were in the audience. Photo from Seattle DogSpot.

One staff person from Parks and Recreation said that it would be difficult add new OLAs because the Parks Dept. “doesn’t have the resources to do everything that’s needed” and that “funding is going to be a challenge.”

Of course we all know that finding funding in Seattle’s budget for any new project will be a challenge, but given that about 25% of Seattle residents have at least one dog, OLAs are woefully underfunded.

Ellen Escarcega, a representative of Citizens for Off Leash Areas, said that Seattle only allocates $104,000 per year for OLA maintenance. This means the average amount of that $200 allocated to OLAs is only 67 cents or about .3 percent.

Considering that about 25 percent of Seattle households have at least 1 dog, dog owners don’t get much bang for our buck compared to how much we contribute to Seattle Parks’ operating budget.

Conversely, Seattle is spending millions to develop new human-only parks, renovate current parks, and updating equipment in several playgrounds.

That’s fine, but why is there no funding for new OLAs?

The best way to determine a city’s priorities is to see what its budget funds. The pittance allocated to Seattle’s OLAs shows that they are not a priority for Seattle Parks and Recreation, the Mayor, or the City Council.

WE’RE MAD AS HELL AND WE AREN’T GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE

Dog owners’ main complaint at the public hearing was that the draft plan doesn’t establish any new OLAs.

Here are some of the other comments I heard:

This woman reassures her dog that Seattle will have new OLAs one day. Photo from Seattle DogSpot.

“The document has no real or measurable goals.”

“This document gives us Seattle process and no promises that anything will change.”

“I’m tired of driving 30 minutes or more past parks I don’t use but I pay for.”

“I’m tired of hearing you say you don’t have enough money because Seattle has the highest per capita spending (on parks) than all US cities.”

“I’m tired of driving 2500 miles across this traffic-laden city every year to exercise my dog.”

“25% of Seattleites (dog owners) only use .4 percent of the land.”

“Our tiny OLAs are overcrowded with law abiding dog owners.”

“I fear you going to make minor changes to this draft and pat yourselves on the back for listening to dog owners. Throw it out and start over.”

Dog owners had high hopes when Seattle Parks announced it would develop a People, Dogs, and Parks Master Plan. But based on the comments I heard at the pubic meeting, they are extremely disappointed with the draft and increasingly frustrated that city leaders aren’t committed to creating new OLAs in Seattle.

THINK DIFFERENT

I didn’t expect the Board’s draft to give Seattle dog owners everything we want, but I hoped it would commit to fund new dogs parks. I’ve written before,the Master Plan draft has no solid commitments to creating new OLAs. It also doesn’t contain any visionary, out-of-the-box solutions to the problem.

For example, people use some balls fields in Seattle only a few months out of the year. Why not allow people to run their dogs on them during mornings or evenings? The cost would be minimal, and it could start immediately. Or pick one ball field a try it out as a pilot program.

It makes no sense to me to allow them to sit unused for during the fall, winter, and most of the spring.

Or why not make one of the current parks a multi-use park open to off leash dogs during specific times of day to see how it will work? If New York City can make it work in Central Park, isn’t it worth at least a try in Seattle?

When Seattle Parks release the draft last June, it noted that it intended the plan to “guide the operations of existing OLAs, explore alternative service models, and create strategies for development of future OLAs.”

The only concrete proposals the plan offers is writing more tickets for people with off-leash dogs in areas where they should be leashed and restricting the number of dogs that dog walkers can bring into OLAs.

I commend the Board of Parks Commissioners for recognizing problems with our current OLA system and starting the dialogue regarding how to address them. But penalizing dog owners while providing no specifics for creating new OLAs is unacceptable.

If the Parks Board doesn’t make any changes to the draft without addressing the concerns about it raised by dog owners, then its goal of having a People, Dogs, and Parks Master Planto identify a long term plan that addresses “maintenance, acquisition, and expansion of OLA projects” will not be met.

This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy. If you want to know more or withdraw your consent to the use of cookies, please refer to the cookie policy. By closing this banner, scrolling this page, clicking a link or continuing to browse otherwise, you agree to the use of cookies.
Cookie Policy